Arlin Specter on EVERY Issue (His Voting Record)

ISSUES 2000 ^ | FR Post 11-11-04 | VARIOUS

[EdReform]

BTTT

[Texas Eagle]

The issue is not Specter's voting record. The issue is Specter throwing down the gauntlet the day after President Bush was re-elected.

[OXENinFLA]

WOW!

[Bommer]

The issue is not Specter's voting record.

Perhaps not, but it gives the clearest possible picture of someone who wants to appoint judges. His record on voting is simular to Kerry's.

[TomGuy]

SPECTER supported subjecting our troops to trials by the International Criminal Court (ICC)!

Posted by k2blader On News/Activism 11/10/2004 4:34:50 PM CST · 61 replies · 747+ views U.S. Senate Website ^ | November 10, 2004 | k2blader On June 6, 2002, Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) voted against adding the American Servicemembers' Protection Act (ASPA) to the 2002 Supplemental Appropriations Act for Further Recovery From and Response to Terrorist Attacks on the United States. Source The ASPA is "a bill to protect United States military personnel and other elected and appointed officials of the United States Government against criminal prosecution by an international criminal court to which the United States is not a party." Source --- Essentially, Specter is on record as being the only Republican Senator to vote in support of subjecting our military men and women...

[NativeNewYorker]

Lifetime rankings: American Conservative Union, 43; Americans for Democratic Action, 59.

Nuff said.

[Always Right]

Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life. (Mar 2003)

However, Specter voted against Partial Birth Abortion when it first came up in 1995 and Clinton vetoed it. So you could say he voted for it before it voted against it. The problem with Specter is despite some of his more recent votes, we know where is heart is and it is a Liberal Living Document interpretation of the Constitution. Specter's legacy is to be the man who saved protect Roe v. Wade. So don't be mislead by some votes that make it appear he is not that bad of a guy. Specter has articulated his agenda many times in the past and it is to beat conservatives.

[MB6.3]

This Specter issue is a danger to us. I won’t call it radioactive but the “danger Will Robinson” sounds should be ringing in our ears. If we overplay Arlen’s comments and rally the troops to deny him the chairmanship there are major risks. The risks outweigh any possible rewards here.

The only upside is we make a point. Great, but a Pyrrhic victory at best. The downside on this “victory” is we expend and waste a ton of momentum and popular support. Bashing Specter makes us look petty, small, narrow minded and poor winners. (This is not to suggest we adopt the Dim notion that while winning we have to reach out to them and “moderate” positions.) MSM will go nuts and donation to NARL, Planned Parenthood and other “choice” PACs go through the roof.

Specter has been taken to the woodshed by the Bush team. Allowing him to assume the Chair does (IMHO) a couple good things. First and foremost, he owes his political life to GWB. As we all know, if not for GWB Pat Toomey’s in the Senate. GWB hold major chips with this guy and, while a royal PITB, Specter ain’t stupid. Secondly, if Specter pushes a nominee, most MSM is going to view that nominee as a “moderate” because of Specter’s history. The nominee may in fact not be that moderate, but Arlen’s stamp on it is going to give it the benefit of the doubt. I don’t think we’re talking about any David Souter’s here.

My 2 cents worth, but I’m concerned we end up looking like a bunch of knuckle-draggin’, mouth breathing nimrods.

[TheBattman]

I see a Kerry-esque pattern - quite a few flip-flops.

[Egon]

Good information. Thanks!

[Taggart_D]

It seems to me that Specter has realized the FReeper threat, as I've seen some attempts lately to help him out.

Bring it on Mr. Specter. However, I believe the information below deserves reposting on this thread. I copied it from someone else.

---

Senator Specter has an Agenda — Liberal Judges “President Bush ran forthrightly on a clear agenda for this nation’s future, and the nation responded by giving him a mandate.” – Remarks by Vice President Cheney introducing President Bush for his victory speech, Ronald Reagan Building, November 3, 2004.

President Bush’s margin of victory proves that we “have a narrowly divided country, and that’s not a traditional mandate…the number-one item on my agenda is to try to move the party to the center.” – Sen. Arlen Specter, November 3, 2004.

Senator Arlen Specter's shocking comments the day after President Bush's decisive re-election raise troubling concersn

Specter denied the legitimacy of President Bush’s historic mandate.


Specter announced a pro-abortion litmus test for the president’s judicial nominees. Specter claims that Roe v. Wade is “inviolate” and insists that “nobody can be confirmed today who does not agree with it.”


Specter’s illegal litmus test would disqualify all constitutionalist nominees from serving on the Supreme Court of the United States and the lower federal courts.


Specter’s illegal litmus test demands that all nominees violate the canons of judicial ethics by announcing or pledging how they will vote in a particular case.


Specter will not promise to support the President’s nominees. Instead, he merely “hopes” that he can support them. The day after the election, when a reporter asked Specter if he would support the president’s nominees, the senator hesitated and equivocated: “I am hopeful that I’ll be able to do that. That obviously depends upon the president’s judicial nominees. I’m hopeful that I can support them.”


Specter criticized President Bush’s first-term judicial nominees: “The nominees whom I supported in committee, I had reservations on.”


Specter insulted Janice Rogers Brown, president Bush’s nominee to the important U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. Specter referred to Brown, a distinguished conservative and the first African American woman to serve on the California Supreme Court, as “the woman judge out of California” who he had reservations about.


Specter insulted the entire Supreme Court of the United States, including Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Scalia and Thomas. When a reporter asked Specter “Are you saying that there is not greatness” on the Supreme Court, Specter replied: “Yes. Can you take yes for an answer?”


Specter’s comments reveal that, like Sen. Kerry and Sen. Daschle, Specter favors judges who follow politics and popular opinion, not the Constitution and the rule of law.


Specter accused President Bush of ignoring the Senate’s advise and consent role: “The Constitution has a clause called advise and consent, the advise part is traditionally not paid a whole lot of attention to, I wouldn’t say quite ignored, but close to that.”


Specter wants to encroach upon the president’s appointment power. Obstructionist Democrats filibustered ten of President Bush’s appeals court nominees. Now Specter wants the Senate to become MORE involved in judicial appointments: “My hope is that the Senate will be more involved in expressing our views.”


Specter's record over the last 20 years demonstrated a pattern of very troubling conduct on Judiciary Committee issues


SIGN THE PETITION
Specter fought against the distinguished Judge Robert H. Bork, betraying President Reagan and his fellow Republicans.


Specter voted against Judge Bork on the judiciary committee, and against Bork’s confirmation on the Senate floor. By joining liberal Democratic senators and radical left-wing groups in their opposition to Judge Bork, Specter gave those groups aid and comfort, and was instrumental in Judge Bork’s defeat.


Judge Bork warned Americans that Specter does not understand the Constitution and that Specter, along with Senate Democrats “professed horror at the thought that a judge must limit his rulings to the principles in the actual Constitution.”


President Ronald Reagan called the left-wing assault against Judge Bork “an unprecedented political attack” on a Supreme Court nominee and “a tragedy for our country.” Specter rebuffed President Reagan’s plea to support Judge Bork.


Specter helped defeat the nomination of conservative Jeff Sessions for a federal judgeship.


Specter warned filibustered appeals court nominee William Pryor that just because he voted for him on the committee did not mean that he would vote on the Senate floor for his confirmation.


The “National Review” exposed Specter as “The Worst Republican Senator” in a prominent September 1, 2003 cover story. According to “National Review,” Specter “is not a team player…is an abortion rights absolutist, a dogged advocate of racial preferences, a bitter foe of tax reform, a firm friend of the International Criminal Court.”


Specter refuses to support the elevation of Justice Clarence Thomas to Chief Justice: “I’d have to think about that,” Specter equivocated. Ditto for Justice Antonin Scalia: “I’d have to think about that too.” Specter once slandered Justice Thomas as a “disappointment.”


The Chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee must be someone devoted to the Constitution as written and the rule of law

The situation is urgent. Chief Justice Rehnquist is gravely ill. A Supreme Court vacancy is imminent.

President Bush may be called upon to nominate a Supreme Court justice within the next several weeks.

Court watchers predict as many as three Supreme Court vacancies during President Bush’s second term.

President Bush will likely have a historic, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to return the Supreme Court to constitutionalist principles.

The President needs as chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee a loyal, reliable, conservative partner who will shepherd his nominees through the confirmation process.


Under intense political pressure, Specter tried to recant portions of his post-election statements the day after he uttered them. That means nothing. His 20-year record of party disloyalty and tormenting conservative nominees means everything.

As chairman, Specter will act as a vexatious intermeddler, second-guessing President Bush’s Supreme Court and lower court nominations. This imperils the President’s legacy.

Under the Senate’s seniority rules, Specter is slated to take over the Judiciary Committee, but under Senate rules and procedures, he can be stopped from becoming committee chairman.

The window of opportunity to stop Specter is limited. Once he becomes chairman, it will be impossible to unseat him.

Contact Senator Frist
202-224-3135

Contact Senator Santorum
202-224-6324

Tell them in no uncertain terms that Specter cannot be made Senate Judiciary Chairman

Do NOT take "no" for an answer!



Bush has no Mandate?

Just say "NO" To Specter's Games!

Senate Judiciary Committee GOP Members

Contact Senator Orrin Hatch
202-224-5251

Contact Senator Charles Grassley
202-224-3744

Contact Senator Jon Kyl
202-224-4521

Contact Senator Mike DeWine
202-224-2315

Contact Senator Jeff Sessions
202-224-4124

Contact Senator Lindsey Graham
202-224-5972

Contact Senator Larry Craig
202-224-2752

Contact Senator Saxby Chambliss
202-224-3521

Contact Senator John Cornyn
202-224-2934

[ElectionTracker]

"First and foremost, he owes his political life to GWB."

So? It's too late for Bush to get rid of Specter. Do you think that Specter's going to say "Oh, you were so nice to me so I'm going to set my agenda aside and support your nominees."?

"Secondly, if Specter pushes a nominee, most MSM is going to view that nominee as a "moderate"; because of Specter's history."

Anyone Bush nominates is going to be portrayed as an extremist by the MSM whether he is one or not. If the nominee is conservative, Specter will oppose him and the MSM will say "This nominee is so extreme that even Republicans don't like him." like Kerry did portaying Chaffee as "Republicans". If the nominee is liberal, Specter will support him and the MSM will say "Senate Republicans were quick to rally around the President's nominee."

[Brandon]

Well said. And remember, Specter has promised:

Hearings within 30 days for all Bush nominees

An up-down vote in committee within 30 days after the hearings

An up-down floor vote within 30 days after the committee vote. (Obviously, Specter cannot guarantee this last item, since it depends on Dem filibusters, but it implies a pledge by Specter to vote to break any such filibusters)

I don't think you can expect much more from a committee chairman. Remember also that Specter has voted to confirm all of Bush's nominees so far, including pro-life nominees.

[chainsaw]

Specter’s comments reveal that, like Sen. Kerry and Sen. Daschle, Specter favors judges who follow politics and popular opinion, not the Constitution and the rule of law.

A clear violation of his oath of office. It also explains why he is quoting ancient Scottish law as a basis for his decisions in the senate.

We cannot afford to spend as much energy as we have on this election, and have this democrat(Specter) put into the most important chairmanship position in the government.

I read the other day that the senate is a gentlemans club and you don't passover someone for a chairmanship. So much for the gentlemans agreements. They didn't care when they were refusing to give judicial nominees an up or down vote as the constitution mandates.

[RockinRight]

Even Chaffee's ACU rating is better, isn't it?

[blasater1960]

They dont call him Arlin Sphincter for nothing.

[Cedar]

That Specter received donations from Soros spells it out plainly for all to see. Specter cannot be trusted.

Soros knew Specter might get the Chair if he could defeat Toomey. Specter was BACKED FINANCIALLY by the most ardent opposer of conservative causes.

Quote from the article about it during campaign:

"As Jim Geraghty reported on NRO last week, Soros, a wealthy Manhattan financier, donated $50,000 to the Republican Mainstream Partnership (RMP). This contribution will help this group of self-described moderate Republicans bolster Specter's effort to win Pennsylvania's hotly contested GOP Senate primary against pro-market stalwart Congressman Pat Toomey"

[reformed_democrat]

The risks outweigh any possible rewards here.

The downside on this “victory” is we expend and waste a ton of momentum and popular support. Bashing Specter makes us look petty, small, narrow minded and poor winners.

First and foremost, he owes his political life to GWB.

. . . if Specter pushes a nominee, most MSM is going to view that nominee as a “moderate” because of Specter’s history. The nominee may in fact not be that moderate, but Arlen’s stamp on it is going to give it the benefit of the doubt.

I’m concerned we end up looking like a bunch of knuckle-draggin’, mouth breathing nimrods.

OK, first things first -- the "risks" you cite seem to center on appearances. We (conservatives) will be seen as petty, small, narrow minded and poor winners and we end up looking like a bunch of knuckle-draggin’, mouth breathing nimrods.

I understand your concern. But conservatives will always be portrayed as a bunch of knuckle-draggin’, mouth breathing nimrods, no matter how many degress we display on our collective walls. The media hate us, for no good reason, and the only attack they have left is the ad hominum. Personally, I'm used to it, and would be concerned if they ever expressed favorable interest in anything I hold dear.

Now, as to he [Specter] owes his political life to GWB. . . if Specter pushes a nominee, most MSM is going to view that nominee as a “moderate” . . .

Arlen Specter owes nothing to anyone. Just ask him, he'll tell you. As a former constituent, I am quite familiar with the "tender mercies" of Mr. Specter. Never be fooled into believing Specter owes anyone a debt of gratitude. He does not.

The fact that Specter is a "moderate" will not insulate him from the media. Remember what they did to Zell Miller? And he's still a democrat. A conservative being slowly roasted by the media will cause Specter to get the matches, not the fire extinguisher. He will not defend a conservative nominee. More likely, he will help the democrats defeat one, either through direct action or, more likely, inaction.

We have virtually nothing to gain by allowing Specter to ascend to the Chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee.

[gnarledmaw]

"Favors topic 10:Absolute right to gun ownership"

Are they sloppy over there or did Sphincter pay them off?

GOA Alert: Stop Arlen Specter from Blocking Conservative Pro-gun Judges

From link:

This is the same Specter who has opposed your gun rights over the last several years. To be sure, this is the Specter who:

* Cosponsored legislation in 1991 to make it a FELONY to possess any magazine that holds more than 15 rounds (S. 635).

* Voted FOR the crime bill (HR 3355) which contained the Clinton semi- auto ban in 1994.

* Voted FOR the Incumbent Protection Act in 2002 to prevent groups like the NRA and GOA from criticizing public officials in the electronic media up to 60 days before an election (HR 2356).

This is also the same Specter who voted AGAINST arming the nation’s pilots in September 2002. Amazingly, he was one of only SIX senators who voted against this bill. Even anti-gun Senators John Kerry and John Edwards voted right!